User talk:BabaisLove


 * } Hoverfish Talk 15:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Avatars Abode edits
I appreciate you may be a keen editor but you may have also noticed some editors reverted all your edits twice, for good reason. Your edits destroyed a good article and could have got the whole thing deleted, as you had no references, expressed POV and filled it with hearsay. Please dont do this. Its not what Wikipedia is about. please read the above guidelines --No-More-Religion (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

what you are doing right now on Avatar's Abodes site is bordering on vandalism. stop and discuss please --No-More-Religion (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You have been reverted three times now in a few days for major edits. your conduct is abusive and prohibited. Stop these massive edits please. This is your third warning which you have ignored.--No-More-Religion (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Avatar's Abode, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No-More-Religion (talk • contribs) 10:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Acting the way you do creates a very bad impression in Wikipedia, and given the username you have chosen, it also creates a very bad mental association to observers. If you have a problem with No-More-Religion's edits it is best you discuss about it in the article's talk page. If you think that facts are partially presented or that the wrong conclusions are drawn from the sources given, it should be discussed rather than reverting text that is based on referenced sources. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 10:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your request on my talk page, I have to say first that my above comment is not meant to criticize you. Taking it that you are new to Wikipedia it is quite understandable that you are not familiar with the rules, so I am trying to help you become familiar. Another new editor, Ch59, has pointed out to me that you are a historian and that the information currently contained in the article is not correct. I am neutral and do not claim to have any knowledge about what is correct or not. I sense that User:No-More-Religion has drawn some conclusions not contained in the sources he is citing, but this does not give another the right to delete the cited information without discussion. To start such a discussion, you have to use the article's talk page by pressing the "Talk" tab at its top, there you have to press the tab "New Section", give it an appropriate title and add your reasoning. At this point it would be wise to add an explanation on why you deleted the parts you did. It often happens during edit disputes that editors are pushy about their point of view, but in this case I think that a neutral point of view can be reached if the matter is placed on the table. I hope this is of help and I will participate in the discussion I am advising you to start in Avatar's Abode. I may be an outsider to the issue, but I am familiar with the requirements of Wikipedia, with the use or misuse of sources and with reaching a Neutral Point Of View (NPOV). Best regards. Hoverfish Talk 15:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the help that administrator Rosiestep has offered you above, this offers you an additional way of discussing your concerns in a neutral environment and by editors who have a good and many-sided know-how of Wikipedia and its processes. To participate there, please press on the link "Teahouse" in that message, and when you reach this page press on "Ask a question right now" and then on "Click here to ask a question". Give a title to your comment and discuss your concern. However, this additional option does not bypass the need to discuss in the article's talk page. Hoverfish Talk 15:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Also please, add new comments at the bottom of a Talk page, so they can be spotted and always sign by adding four tiddles ( ~ ) at the end of your message. This adds you username and date-stamp automatically. Hoverfish Talk 16:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

As for emailing other editors, it is not the established way of communicating with them. Emailing should be used only if there is a specific reason why something cannot be discussed openly within Wikipedia or if you have some reason to be confidential about some issue. Some editors who chose to be reachable by email have checked the "Enable e-mail from other users" option in their Preferences (press the "My Preferences" link at the very top for checking this option for your account). In this case a link "E-mail this user" appears in the left sidebar of their User Page, under "Toolbox". If such a link exists in a User Page, you can press it and a form opens by which you can email them. Hoverfish Talk 17:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi BabaisLove. HoverfFish has given very good advice. I am open certainly to making the article better, more accurate, which is my intent. It was fairly sparse recently. I added two pictures I took up there, and some references. As for any conclusions sI have reached, I believe they are reasonable and middle of the road, but I am open to dialogue. The article needs some work on the current status. Please bear in mind wikipedia is not a tourist brochure, its an encyclopedia. References are a must. Most of what I wrote occurred, some of what I wrote are reasonable conclusions between the previous referenced material. I understand people may be upset by this, but I reiterate its an encyclopedia, its not the Avatars Abode Trust info site. Im surprised you reverted last night after being asked to discuss. I went live online to get some advice. what you were doing looked like vandalism, it happens, and you had been reverted twice already. So last night was three. Thats a threshold. Glad we got this sorted and you will now talk on the talk page of the article --No-More-Religion (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

More response
Hi. Thanks Humus/No-More-Religion etc....Gee still working out how to do responses and how to talk privately without it all going everywhere - any suggestions? I saw the 'changes' section but can't seem to input any comment. I am going to sit with all this for a while and think up some suitable stuff before any possible submits. Yes, the mandali say beautiful things - about a lot of people, and are careful to avoid damning anyone - I had grievances about others (not Bill) that I once took to Bhau. He was always so careful and kind about them all - a great example. Also many of the locals (to their credit) never troubled the mandali with accusations or 'full details' of their woes, so who knows how much of any side of the coin ever got through to India? I agree the fuller story needs telling, but surely best in a way that is uplifting and useful to everyone. It's tough - I tried that with 'Meher Baba's Australian Travels' and it took a long time before the content was OKed by all the different parties (as they each had their own versions and refused to be part of the project unless I removed what this or that one said!! I was in the end able to come up with something that everyone (I hope) was happy with, and I think that can be done here too. Bill himself would often tell me to not mention divisive stuff, for the sake of harmony. You'll find his own books never delve into this stuff, for that reason. The problem is that a lot of instructions were given by Baba to various people at the Abode, often in different contexts and in adjustments to internal changes there, and I'm not sure anyone knew exactly everything Baba had said to each one. Equally, it's hard to know what out of all that was meant to be the "rules for all time" or just the rules for that time. Moreover, Baba said some amazing and wonderful things to quite a few folk (e.g. telling Robert & Bill that they were the left & right hands of Francis; or getting Reg to sit at His feet throughout the sahavas in the Meeting Hall) - it may be difficult to include all this - especially as not everyone has even shared what Baba told them, as they feel it's their personal order from Him and none of our business (Robert Rouse once told me once such order Baba gave him, that explained a lot to me - but again, this was quite private). As I doubt we can know Baba's Mind when He engineered all this, I think we can only safely say something like 'this happened, then that happened...' Anyway, when I'm up to it, I'll post something for us to ponder on/ fiddle on together... Regards BabaisLoveRayCK 02:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Response
Hi XXXX ( name removed please do not use my name here HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC) :) Firstly I want to commend you for starting an article on Avatar's Abode as it was long overdue and Wikapedia remains a first stop for people wanting to know more about any topic. As I explained to Hoverfish, I do have plenty of refs (I've already written booklets and articles on this topic including editing Lord Meher at the request of David Fenster) but have been out of the game a bit and couldn't work out the uploading, and got impatient. Also I couldn't even work out where to respond. Thus I certainly wasn't deliberately avoiding discussion with you or anyone! I am now trying to follow through to understnad better the protocols and methods - it wasn't this complex when I contributed to Wikapedia years back (I contribute history stuff).

My understanding from Baba is that truth = what is constructive. He used to harangue Eruch for being too blunt (He'd say "Damn your truth! Look what you've done!"). If all we can offer about Avatar's Abode is a summary of its past or present problems, how useful is that to persons who want simply to know the basics about the place? Why expect any more than imperfection from imperfect persons trapped in Illusion?

My apologies for deleting your stuff but if you read the content I tried to substitute, you'll see I was trying to offer instead something that made less mention of individuals and incidents, so that the reader would have a general picture of what Avatar's Abode represents and not have to read too much about the dramas that the Abode (through Baba's Grace) survived. I hoped to emphasize accomplishments rather than failures/ problems. There will always be more complaints and 'different viewpoints' to add - it's endless. Equally, there are always be people who feel their particular contribution has been 'left out.'

I'm sure you know I spent decades interviewing, talking with and researching the 'early folk' and history of Avatar's Abode. Remember I had the task of putting together the library and archives (including at one point Bill's archives). I also worked a lot on the other stuff (Francis material etc.). What I found is that there's a lot of documents (many you haven't seen) that contain painful personal stuff, and many more different factors and viewpoints that make the whole thing quite complex.... Let's pretend you & I included each and every bit of this, with a solid reference. How would that be helpful?

Do you realize that there are people around the Abode who never let others see the documents in their possession,or even mention them, out of love and respect for each other, because they know that the details would be harmful to certain individuals? Some have even destroyed docs so that their peers would not be embarrassed or humiliated in later years, for they understand that they too are not perfect and would not enjoy anyone dredging up where and when they failed. Other people around the Abode seem happy to share how they were wronged and all the injustices they suffered.

But I prefer the attitude of those who don't wish to concentrate on how they were wronged. I admire that they would rather forgive and forget. I prefer to follow that example, and help the community move on from its past. Buddha said: "The man who still thinks 'he did this to me, she did that to me' cannot enter the Gate of Enlightenment"

Anyway I think we can work through this. I will though be going very slow as its' quite a learning curve for me on this. Best regards Ray Kerkhove BabaisLoveRayCK 23:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. you make some excellent points. (BTW I didnt start this article...check history) Of all the people who were possibly editing, I'm delighted its you. Its endless you say...it sure seems that way. You know i got a personal email from Bhau Kalchuri last Jan 2012 saying "Bill is a jewel from Baba’s time. Jewels don’t change, because though Baba is physically not present, He is always present internally". Hard to top that. Then a trustee slanders Bill by email to me, and I do mean slander and defammation of character in writing (crazy stuff) and says it was 99 to 1 against Bill. Black and White. Now B&W is fundamentalist stuff, with connotations of good vs evil. Thats not fair or right. Bill helped many people, hes no saint either, but even so it was sustained back biting. I am convinced Baba wants some balance, hence a balanced history would be fair and reasonable in the article, minus the gory details. what do you think? . BTW in what capacity are you here? --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

ps remember to chat on the AA articles Talk page itself about proposed changes --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Some points I see above which need to be clarified. First it should be noted that because of the privacy rules, in Wikipedia we do not mention the real-world names of users, unless of course they have included them in their username, or like RayCK did above, reveal them freely by themselves in comments. Secondly the question "in what capacity are you here?" has only one acceptable answer in Wikipedia: we are here as users (or editors). Our real world degrees and positions should play no role in our edits. We cannot add information "because we are in a position to know this is true or correct". We add information only based on verifiable sources we cite. "Verifiable" means that other people can check the cited material for themselves. This has policy level importance in Wikipedia and may sound very strange until understood. I quote here its most important point: "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable." The full policy page is here: WP:VERIFY. The next step is to understand what are "Reliable Sources" (reliable for Wikipedia, not as we usually mean it). This is by no means an easy topic, and even people who have been editing wikipedia for years do not have a good grasp of it. The reason it is important here, is because material published from within an organization is considered "Self-published" and there are some very strict limits when using it as a source. So I will ask both parties to please try to understand the WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Although this is not a policy but a "guideline" it is based on very wide consensus in Wikipedia and is a very important consideration. Hoverfish Talk 11:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that Hoverfish. I have a problem now. How to I get my real name off the view history of this page? Can it be done? I dont want it here. Regarding what you wrote above about "Reliable Sources" and "Verifiability, and not truth". I woke up with these thoughts as well and penned this regarding efforts to remove Bill Le Page from the Avatars Abode article. Concerning Bhau Kalchuri and Bills right to be on this page. Not only is Bill mentioned in Lord Meher with Avatars Abode and Australia by Baba in 'the' most intimate manner, (see Bill Le Page article please for Lord Meher quotes) Le Page has significant sustained and ongoing history with Avatars Abode, e.g. principal benefactor for 20 odd years and being chairman of its trust since perhaps forever, (check needed) certainly for close to 38 years. There is also this from Bhau last month in an email to me (email can be requested): "Bill and XXXX (name X' ed out)are jewels from Baba’s time. Jewels don’t change, because though Baba is physically not present, He is always present internally. He is with you.” So as a start point for collaborative editing I am asking that you Please do not just try to wipe Bill out from this page. Its unreasonable. Its POV if it is done. From a Neutral standpoint, he is part of AA's past and present and that can be referenced at the highest level. please consider reading his newly created page before editing here: @ Bill Le Page. To all other non Baba readers Bhau Kalchuri is close mandali, wrote an extensive Meher Baba history called Lord Meher, its online, and is THE main reference on the page Meher Baba. Bhau is chairman of the Meher Baba Charitable Trust in India.--HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ps re "Self-published" sources. I know you have access to a lot of material BabaisLove but HoverFishes point re "Self-published" sources if taken onboard may save us from time wasting with references that dont met requirements. Thanks --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In summary
 * An article needs to be neutral, not its sources.
 * The factoids in an article need to be verifiable. Hence citations to reliable sources Lord Meher and other devotional literature cited in the article is cited for factoids, not POV conclusions
 * --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

@ HumusCowboy, I answered in your talk page about the outing. This is not the proper place to discuss about the Avatar's Abode, please, move the case there. It has to be discussed there, not here, so that others can know what is going on and find all related arguments in one place. I will wait until both you and BabaisLove have expressed your concerns and if and where needed I will make an effort to explain things or point out problems I see and so on. I am neutral on the issue with a preference of not overusing details from Lord Meher (beyond basic historical facts). Hoverfish Talk 02:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Good, I have double posted most stuff as I posted, here and there. I thought BabaisLove may just read here, being newish, so I wanted to make sure he read the material. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * originally you posted this on my talk page I recently looked at AA site and all my talk with you seems deleted Now 'talk' means the 'talk page', not the art==Avatars Abode article==

Babaislove I read your post on my talk page. Please dont make accusations without checking first if they are true. They are not true. I dont understand what you are saying. No talk posts of yours on AA talk have been deleted. Check history. Its all there and No suggestions of yours have been deleted. Where did you post them? What did they say? Also what do you mean by your 'babaislove stuff is gone?' I think your a bit confused and what you mean are the posts on your talk page which are of course still here. But as Hoverfish pointed out thats the wrong place. Post on the AA talk page there for anything AA. That is the place. Babaislove Wikipedia takes a bit of learning, I know. But history shows all movement. I checked history, there are no deletions of your suggestions. Assume good faith first please. BTW sign off on all your posts. Your welcome to contribute on AA. Like me use the talk page first before edits. You have not been there for some time now, since march 24th, read the talk page there for edit rationales. If you dont get involved you should not accuse someone of not being open and unwilling. This is bordering on a personal attack. As for interpretations, I think they are neutral and fair. If you have any new referenced material for a different perspective we could talk about it, there. As for what people will think of Baba, thats not our job to determine surely. What I wrote is neutral and is referenced, it also happened HumusTheCowboy (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Civility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#No_personal_attacks_or_harassment HumusTheCowboy (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this the correct place to comment? Hope so.

What I mean is that I put in various comments that once were visible but now seem not to be. Moreover, the bits I can see seem significantly shortened where they now appear in Wikkapedia, with bits and names deleted etc. Where is the full text located now?

Additionally, I mean that not a single piece of my original additions has been re-instated in the AA article, whereas you have re-instated all your own material, apparently unaffected by any of the suggestions in our talk discussions, which you said you'd consider. I had understood that the article could have several contributors, but you seem to imply that you alone will decide what is to be included, after duly considering whatever is offered in the talk pages. Indeed, from what I can see, all that occured from of our talk discussions was a set of comments and references whereby you justify/ solidify your own interpretations. I could likewise if necessary put up verifiable references for counter-arguments, and we could go on and on with this weighing up of the various sides of the argument for quite a long time if you wish, but I had understood we were about to concentrate on achieving an article that would be informative, uplifting and positive?

I also feel you may have missed the point I was trying to make. I have not been arguing that no verifiable references exist for the interpretations you offer, or that these events did not occur, but rather asking we reconsider the overall approach that the article takes. For example, the approach of presenting a particular stance as a "neutral" view, when insiders such as you and I are well aware that there are other very strong points of view on the matters raised, is in my understanding provocative and perhaps dishonest to the less-informed reader. The silence of others does not necessarily mean they have no opinion on the topic, or no documentary evidence to back up their position, but simply that they don't wish to enter an argument or start a fight.

In my discussions with many Baba folk over the years around the Abode (including Bill), the dominant urge now is to move on - to forgive and forget. Every human institute has its sad history of imperfection, and Avatar's Abode is no exception, but there is so much that we can celebrate about this special place rather than pointing out where things went wrong.

Re/ overall approach, I think some of what you write is flawed in that you draw some rather broad inferences from your quotes. For example, you suggest AA has not achieved what it should have, because it currently has limited accomodation. However, many people who witnessed Baba at the Abode remember Him saying: "when I come again in 700 years, this will be a place of world pilgrimage." I think this gives a rather different perspective what has been achieved to date. Similarly, as I pointed out in what you deleted of my original additions, Baba continually changed His instructions about the Abode, according to what was necessary (e.g. moving the property-development from Francis to Bill in 1967). As Eruch said, Baba was very practical. I could give you quotes wherein Baba warned against making rules or starting practices simply because at one point in time He instructed A or B. What this means is that it may be speculative to imply that some documents were meant to represent Baba's wishes for all time. For example, did you know at one point Baba wanted to entirely close down the Abode because certain factions were not speaking to each other? I have seen the actual correspondence from Baba. If we took His wish at that point as being mandatory, then we should close down the Abode. However, the two factions (to their credit) became firm friends. I'm not aware of what Baba instructed after that. Indeed, only they know.

This brings me to a very important point: neither you nor I are privvy to all that was given by Baba and His mandali on this and other matters pertaining to the Abode. We thus lack sufficient knowledge to write anything too definative about that realm. For example, it may be a bit of a leap to imply that because Baba or Eurch at one point wanted 5 Trustees, then it was an unnecessary "ballooning" to increase those numbers.

As I said, I have created a referenced article, at the request of several Baba lovers connected with Avatar's Abode. Bill is currently looking at this. It includes mention of Bill and Francis. He has been asked by other Baba lovers to write for Wikapedia on Avatar's Abode. In my understanding even the Trust is supporting this. I hope, given your familiarity with Wikapedia, you will be able to assist with these efforts. RayCK 14:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC) (is this the right way to sign?)


 * @ Babaislove. Im going to cut and paste this to the Avatars Abode talk page in chronological order so other editors can follow it: Also this thread belongs there as its an editing discussion, and a long one. Both Hoverfish and I have said this a few times now. Please go there for reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avatar%27s_ HumusTheCowboy (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Warning
This is an in between edit vandalism warning, to try and stop any large content deletions. Its based on my concerns expressed on the Avatars Abode talk page about your recent post, which may indicate you could attempt a large content deletion with the article you say you have written. Please do not do wholesale content deletions. This warning is probably the last. HumusTheCowboy (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

HumusTheCowboy (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC) What is this warning not to do any disruptive edits? Thus far - ever since earlier discussion - I've added zero but rather had everything I submitted removed by Humus, who persists (it seems) in allowing no voice but his own. I'll seek out the dispute resolution page RayCK 15:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO WARNING I just read your other bit on the Warming. Humus, all my references are verifiable, whereas some of the ones you used are not. Have you seen what I gave Bill? Do you think after all the academic work I've done, I don't know how to use verifiable sources? Your concerns are misplaced. Are you now implying you wish to bar me, Bill and others from contributing? How do you allege I did any edits, seeing you removed every single one of them? The whole point of my long response above what that I was surprised that - after what you had indicated - you continued to add and amend the AA article. You seeem concerned that others are involved - why? Are you now the sole authority about Avatar's Abode? RayCK 15:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply on Avatars Abode talk page in thread, Concerned HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello BabaisLove, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Kerma has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm assuming that you are the individual who left a note on my talk page without logging in a few minutes ago. In case this is true, I want to be sure you see the response. My apologies if I am mistaken in that identification.


 * The article was blanked for copyright investigation some time ago, as unfortunately sections of it were copied from external sources. Assuming that you are registered as User:BabaisLove, as this is the only account I have cautioned with respect to the article, I'm afraid that the content that triggered my concern is exemplified by the following:


 * While I appreciate that you cited your source, because of its prior publication we are unable to use it without verification of compatible license. The page itself bears a caution reading "© 1994-2001 Education Development Center, Inc. All Rights Reserved."


 * The bulk of the copyright problems were not created by this, but is foundational, from the first editor to add material to the article. But this nevertheless is a problem under our copyright policy. If you were the original author of the content on that external site, please see Donating copyrighted materials for more information on how to verify license for content you have authored elsewhere. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was a signing. :) While I'm afraid it's no longer publicly visible, our software indicates the paragraph above was added to the article Kerma by you in this edit. The paragraph on ceramics was also an issue under our approach to copyright, as it closely paraphrased the cited source. (The source is on our blacklist, so I cannot link it directly.) The problem is more clear in the second paragraph you added in that edit (also now removed from public viewing):


 * I've added the bolding to make it easier to see where precise duplication occurs.


 * I appreciate that you gave your reference, but citing the source does not in itself permit us to use the content. While facts are not copyrightable under the U.S. copyright law that governs Wikipedia, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. The essay Close paraphrasing contains more information about these issues.


 * I'm afraid that under our copyright policies, content that follows sources closely in this manner must be removed, unless we are able to verify compatible license. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl. I appreciate your efforts and find all this rather extraordinary. I've not looked at the Kerma site for a long time, but certainly don't recognize ANY of what you've just attributed to me - it's not even the kind of language I'd use (e.g. "bronze age...storming city walls") - how odd.... I didn't write on ceramics - only about blue glazing. I'm tiring of this - not sure how or why I'm getting accused or how my name got dragged into this. Can others sign in using my name? It baffles me. Also "Baba is Love" as you can see by the earlier talk hasn't been used for a couple of years - I've not contributed anything to Wikki for about 2-3 years. When were the dates of the suspicious/ plagaristic quotes? It's all to me a bit odd as I've never needed to "plagarize" as I am a professional writer and have never lacked for ideas - also I'm academically trained so I habitually reference. It's a pity the site itself went down - it does seem to have (if what you wrote is correct) morphed hugely since I last viewed it, and probably contained little of what I originally submitted. Regards Ray Kerkhove58.161.228.53 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)